Williams v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

83 N.Y.S. 1119

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 7, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 83 N.Y.S. 1119 (Williams v. Metropolitan Life Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 83 N.Y.S. 1119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein. Held, that it was error for the trial justice, as he apparently did, to permit the jury to consider the attestation clause upon the policy in question as evidence of its issue and delivery, so as to make a completed contract as claimed by the plaintiff; also held, that it was an impropriety calling for reversal for the counsel for the plaintiff, in summing up, to state: “Here is this insurance company, with its millions, and here is this widow, with her two little ones. As between this insurance company with its millions and this widow with her two little ones, I hope you won’t hesitate long what to do.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein. Held, that it was error for the trial justice, as he apparently did, to permit the jury to consider the attestation clause upon the policy in question as evidence of its issue and delivery, so as to make a completed contract as claimed by the plaintiff; also held, that it was an impropriety calling for reversal for the counsel for the plaintiff, in summing up, to state: “Here is this insurance company, with its millions, and here is this widow, with her two little ones. As between this insurance company with its millions and this widow with her two little ones, I hope you won’t hesitate long what to do.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.Y.S. 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-metropolitan-life-ins-nyappdiv-1903.